Right, I would kind of expect this. Large XML files are difficult to process. I think the latest Xerces is trying to overcome some of the memory issues, but with the current state of affairs, you can expect the parsing to take a while and that a huge amount of memory be used, probably causing garbage collection to be run incessantly.
When possible, it is a good idea to use multiple portlet apps thereby reducing the footprint of any one portlet app. On 7/28/06, Philip Kuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Aaron, thanks for your opinion - i just took over the system where it was solved this way. I think i will solve it this way by definint this "bridge" portlet just once and use portlet preferences. Just btw My expoeriences concerning huge portlet files are, that even on enterprise level machines the tomcat servers has really to struggle with them. A machine with 4GB RAM and over 1gb assigned to the servlet container needs almost 30 minutes to reload a simple application with such a portlet file. Rendering these portlets from that application from jetspeed brings jetspeed to its limits when a lot of users access it. Best regards, Phil > Mine is no where close to that size (74K, 30+ portlets). > > I would say that yes, you should avoid repeating virtually the same > portlet over and over in your portlet.xml and instead configure what > content to display via portlet preferences in psml pages. > > HTH, > aaron > > On 7/27/06, Philip Kuss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> i have a question about your experiences concerning huge portlet.xml >> files. >> Has anyone of you experienes about the performance of a jetspeed2 portal >> deployed on tomcat 5.5.9 and above that must handle a huge number of >> portlets. >> The portlet file will have the size of some megabytes. There will be a >> huge number of portlets necessary. >> >> If so and the performance will become bad cause of it, has anyonce some >> ideas how to handle it a better way ? >> >> The actual scene is, that there is once portlet defined for each content >> that will be included. almost all all portlets are of the same type. >> Perhaps it would be better to give the params to the portlet via the >> psml >> files ? >> >> Thank you in advance for your thoughts! >> >> Best regards, >> >> Phil >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
